Looking for Inspiration, Ideas

and Fresh Perspectives?

Read our Blog Posts

and Let Us Know Your Thoughts

Nowadays, you almost trip over the whiteboards scattered around the shop floors of many organizations. In most cases, these boards show data on a set of indicators linked to themes like safety, quality, timeliness, speed, productivity and team morale. The idea is that through this data, teams can track whether they are achieving their objectives. To do so, these indicators should not only show the data on actuals (i.e., the voice of the process), but also specific targets reflecting the area’s objectives. Unfortunately, this is much less common. So how then do we track the team’s contribution to the organization’s goals? And even when I do see targets, I sometimes wonder how they were set. A post on setting targets.(more…)

Problem-solving and particularly the part that focuses on root cause analysis (RCA) has always been one of the topics that has had my special interest. Specifically, two questions always slumbered in my head, viz. (1) whether you could speak of one root cause, or that you should speak of multiple (root) causes; and (2) whether you should speak of the root cause or rather the root condition. This is the final post in a series of six posts, in which I have tried to explain how rigorous problem-solving logic (using an example) can help us answer these questions. At the same time, I hope the example and the logic will be useful in your own problem-solving efforts or your coaching thereof. This sixth and final post will summarize the analysis, say something about prioritizing counter-measures and conclude on the two questions. I will end the series with some words on how this can help you in your problem-solving efforts and your coaching of problem-solving teams.

Problem-solving and particularly the part that focuses on root cause analysis (RCA) has always been one of the topics that has had my special interest. Specifically, two questions always slumbered in my head, viz. (1) whether you could speak of one root cause, or that you should speak of multiple (root) causes; and (2) whether you should speak of the root cause or rather the root condition. In a series of six posts, I will try to explain how rigorous problem-solving logic (using an example) can help us answer these questions. At the same time, I hope the example and the logic will be of use in your problem-solving efforts or your coaching thereof. This fifth post will again dive into the causal event chain, but now at the systemic level. And I will discuss the problem of people not adhering to the standard.

Problem-solving and particularly the part that focuses on root cause analysis (RCA) has always been one of the topics that has had my special interest. Specifically, two questions always slumbered in my head, viz. (1) whether you could speak of one root cause, or that you should speak of multiple (root) causes; and (2) whether you should speak of the root cause or rather the root condition. In a series of six posts, I will try to explain how rigorous problem-solving logic (using an example) can help us answer these questions. At the same time, I hope the example and the logic will be of use in your problem-solving efforts or your coaching thereof. This fourth post will take us to the systemic level of our problem. I will further explore the concept of barriers and make the link to standards in Lean thinking. At this point in the logic, I will also introduce the problem of occurrence and the problem of non-detection.

Problem-solving and particularly the part that focuses on root cause analysis (RCA) has always been one of the topics that has had my special interest. Specifically, two questions always slumbered in my head, viz. (1) whether you could speak of one root cause, or that you should speak of multiple (root) causes; and (2) whether you should speak of the root cause or rather the root condition. In a series of six posts, I will try to explain how rigorous problem-solving logic (using an example) can help us answer these questions. At the same time, I hope the example and the logic will be of use in your problem-solving efforts or your coaching thereof. This third post will dive into tracing back the causal event chain, introducing and applying concepts like causing events, the initial causing event, and the initial active cause.

Problem-solving and particularly the part that focuses on root cause analysis (RCA) has always been one of the topics that has had my special interest. Specifically, two questions always slumbered in my head, viz. (1) whether you could speak of one root cause, or that you should speak of multiple (root) causes; and (2) whether you should speak of the root cause or rather the root condition. In a series of six posts, I will try to explain how rigorous problem-solving logic (using an example) can help us answer these questions. At the same time, I hope the example and the logic will be of use in your problem-solving efforts or your coaching thereof. This second post will introduce concepts like necessary condition, defensive and control barrier, and will apply these to our example.

Problem-solving and particularly the part that focuses on root cause analysis (RCA) has always been one of the topics that has had my special interest. I have coached many problem-solving teams, and besides the sometimes superficial use of problem-solving tools, there have always been two questions that have slumbered in my head, viz. (1) whether you could speak of one root cause, or that you should speak of multiple (root) causes; and (2) whether you should speak of the root cause or rather the root condition. Based upon the way my mentors have trained and coached me in problem-solving, as well as a lot of self-education and practice, I will try to explain how rigorous problem-solving logic (using an example) can help us answer these questions. At the same time, I hope the example and the logic will be of use in your problem-solving efforts or your coaching thereof.(more…)

This is the third and last post in a series of three about knowing whether you are on your way to perfect flow. The better your flow, the more profitable your business will be and the more returns it will deliver. But how to know where you stand in terms of flow? And how to evaluate whether you progressed? This series of three post tries to develop two measures – flow velocity and flow smoothness – as the way to evaluate the level of and the progress towards flow. In this third post, I will focus on flow smoothness to complement the flow velocity measure discussed in the second post.(more…)

There are many approaches and methods that focus on improving flow. And for good reason, as improving flow yields improved profitability and returns. But how, in fact, can we determine our level of “flow”? In the first post, the typical ‘flow rate’ measure turned out to be unsuitable to do so. In this second post in a series of three, I therefore introduce flow velocity as a first measure to evaluate the level of and the progress towards flow.(more…)

There are many approaches and methods that focus on improving flow. Material Requirements Planning (MRP), Drum-Buffer-Rope (DBR) or Simplified-DBR (SDBR), Demand-Driven MRP (DDMRP), Quick Response Manufacturing (QRM) and of course Lean’s comprehensive Just-in-Time (JIT) approach share the same objective. In comparing these approaches, however, discussions often concentrate on their inner workings. But they often lack an operationalization of the concept of “flow” which they intend to improve. This series of three post tries to develop two measures – flow velocity and flow smoothness – as the way to evaluate the level of and the progress towards flow.(more…)